What if there was say a moratorium on demolishing homes assessed as being worth
more than it would cost to demolish them, rather than what it would cost to fix
them. And creating a deadline for the city to get them back onto the active
market? There are lots of folks who love restoring historical homes.
Rachel Lewis
Longfellow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 11/14/2001 11:55:02 AM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Rachel N Lewis/MN/Unitedmail)
Subject: Mpls digest, Vol 1 #538 - 16 msgs
Send Mpls mailing list submissions to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Mpls digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re:the Riverview Supper Club and the Z & P Meeting (Fredric Markus)
2. City Pages election package (List Manager)
3. housing demolition moratorium (Betts Zerby)
4. RE: Target Center debt bomb (Dooley, Bill)
5. Re: Inner-City Landlords (was Drug Elim Program) (Gregory Luce)
6. Riverview Supper Club and the Z&P Committee Meeting ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
7. Re: housing demolition moratorium (Michael Atherton)
8. More Voodoo/Stadium economics Domes & Targets (Robert Schmid)
9. Re: Voodoo/Stadium economics (Rich Chandler)
10. Re: housing demolition moratorium (Dave Harstad)
11. Re: City Pages election package (Eva Young)
12. RE: housing demolition moratorium (Amanda)
13. RE: Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor (Dean
Zimmermann)
14. List conduct and lawsuits (List Manager)
15. Re: housing demolition moratorium (Jay Clark)
16. Cutbacks to City Attorney Budget-Action Needed!! (Citizens for a Loring
Park Community)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 05:49:46 -0600
From: "Fredric Markus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mpls-Issues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re:[Mpls] the Riverview Supper Club and the Z & P Meeting
What a sorry scene: a roomful of irritated citizens, councilmembers
trying unsuccessfully to hide under their chairs, a developer with an
inside track prepared to ace out the public's interest by threatening
litigation, two Park Board Commissioners complaining about being left
out in the cold by city planners.
It's so cumbersome having to make this point again, but the Planning
Department has done a lousy job of setting this thing up for decision.
Twenty organizations feed into the Mississippi Corridor Neighborhood
Coalition that produced the AIA award-winning 1995 Conceptual River
Corridor Plan. The post-hoc Citizen Advisory Committee set up by the
city in response to this major coalition initiative is severely
criticized in MCNC's August 2001 publication for having excluded MCNC
itself, for dropping inclusionary language, for excluding provision for
resident participation in this "citizen" participation organization, for
setting up a "group within the group" that effectively marginalizes most
participants in the CAC, for showering the CAC with "confusing concepts
and disjointed processes", in short for inept and unresponsive planning
practice out front while keeping the Park Board in the dark about the
Riverview parcel and going ahead with a surprise deal with a developer
that flies in the face of the widely supported public desire for a
seven-acre park.
>From list member Candy Sartell's post: "The large turnout in strong
support of preserving the site as open space and park was well
represented by residents, industry/business, environmental groups and
recreational interests. How often can we expect that level of consensus
between such diverse groups on like developments? So many sound
arguments were made for preserving this space as park."
>From CM-elect Zimmermann's post: "The Park Board does want to purchase.
The Park Board has a way of coming up with money--that is not the
problem at all. We have the money for this situation under control.
The problem is that there is no process in place to put any of the land
in the Upper River Master Plan district into the hands of the Park Board
or any public agency. Something stinks here. I am told that Mr.
Baylor sat on the Planning Commission at the time he obtained the
purchase rights for the Riverview Supper Club. Is this, what in the
stock market, is called "insider trading"? Can anyone verify that?"
CM-elect Gary Schiff sings Planning Director Chuck Ballentine's praises
for LRT planning and the expedited removal of the burned-out Burger King
on Lake St., admiring the Planning Director's attention to these little
"quality of life" details as well as facilitating the larger area
planning. But that same Planning Director is getting roasted - and
rightly so - for giving away the store along the Mississipi. Given the
howls of protest North and Northeast, one must wonder who's waiting in
the development wings South and Southeast.
Vanishing a burned-out building is business as usual. I wonder where CM
Niland was when Gary was asking Chuck to intervene. Shucks, maybe Chuck
talked to Jim or vice versa and that's what really cut the red tape on
this demolition. My point is that the removal of a noxious building,
however helpful, doesn't restore my faith in the ancien regime in city
hall.
Transparency in the planning process is what's missing and I'm not
reassured when a new council member so easily sells his bowl of porridge
re Planning Director Chuck Ballentine. Let's hope the mayor-elect will
be less impulsive and oh, yes - while I'm making rude noises - let's
hope the erstwhile council president-to-be gets a grip too. It's just
not good government to let the staff let the developers do their thing
while the good citizens wail and gnash their teeth.
Fred Markus Horn Terrace Ward Ten
--__--__--
Message: 2
From: "List Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 07:08:33 -0600
Subject: [Mpls] City Pages election package
Lotsa stories if you want to relive the moment again:
http://www.citypages.com/databank/22/1093/article9939.asp
>From the SSB party:
http://www.citypages.com/databank/22/1093/article9939.asp?page=2
>From the RT party:
http://www.citypages.com/databank/22/1093/article9939.asp?page=3
>From the Green party:
http://www.citypages.com/databank/22/1093/article9939.asp?page=6
List members...and lawsuits?...in the news:
http://www.citypages.com/databank/22/1093/article9941.asp
David Brauer
List manager
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 07:10:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Betts Zerby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] housing demolition moratorium
David's idea of a moratorium on housing demolition strikes me as a
good idea and I'd be inclined to favor it. Are there any downsides
to it that other list members think merit attention before adopting
it?
Paul Zerby
=====
Elizabeth J. Zerby
Minneapolis MN
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
--__--__--
Message: 4
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Target Center debt bomb
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:23:56 -0600
From: "Dooley, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "List Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The more stadia debt and financing stories I read, the more I see
government-run casinos on the horizon.
Bill Dooley
Ward 13
Kenny
-----Original Message-----
From: List Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] Target Center debt bomb
Nice scoop by Strib's Rochelle Olson, troubling situation for city
taxpayers: Target Center faces a cumulative $22 million debt shortfall
through 2024. The finance plan for repaying the city-backed bonds looks
"pretty shaky" according to the MCDA's Steve Cramer.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/503/827507.html
David Brauer
List manager
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
--__--__--
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:41:54 -0600
From: Gregory Luce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: North Phillips Press
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] Re: Inner-City Landlords (was Drug Elim Program)
Keith Reitman wrote:
> The City of Mpls. Landlord Licensing provisions go even farther against
> property owners. Mpls ordinance should not hold the owner responsible for
> alleged behaviors, as described above, by tenants, tenant's guests, or anyone
> who happens to wander onto the porch, yard or gangway or even the public
> sidewalk or street in front of the property. Keep in mind, property owner
> punishment can occur even if these second, third, and fourth parties alleged
> criminal behaviors fail to cause arrest, charge or conviction of that tenant,
> tenant guest or itinerant stranger. "At the end of the day" this type of law
> may quickens the loss of free market investment in the inner city, and the
> loss and deterioration of affordable housing. If Greg Luce or Acorn asked me,
> "How can we get rid of those pesky, bottom feeding, landlords?" I would
> answer, "Create an environment in our inner city that welcomes and rewards
> investment, rather then blaming and shaming, and sanctioning small business
> people called property owner."
Quick insignificant aside: attributing this language to me, after being
overly careful not to use such language in a very contentious area, is
unfair. But, unfortunately, par for the course.
More importantly, and in preparation for tonight's PRAC forum in which I
am sure this issue will be discussed at length,
here's a brief rundown of the conduct on premises ordinance that many
PRAC landlords complain about:
The ordinance makes the licensee (the landlord) responsible for taking
"appropriate action," with the assistance of the CCP/SAFE and police,
when a tenant or the tenant's guest engages in any of the following conduct:
1. illegal gambling;
2. prostitution;
3. sale or possession of illegal drugs;
4. unlawful sale of alcoholic beverages;
5. noisy assemblies;
6. unlawful possession, transportation, sale or use of a weapon;
7. disorderly conduct that disturbs the peace and quiet of occupants of
at least two units of the building
When the police receive one report of an incident involving this
conduct, they are to notify the landlord by mail of the violation and
ask the landlord to take appropriate action. A violation must be
determined based on "substantial evidence." CCP/SAFE is available for
assistance.
If a second violation occurs within one year, the SAFE team must notify
the landlord again and will require the landlord to submit a written
report of the incident and the landlord's proposed action to prevent
further disorderly use of the building. This is sometimes called a
management plan, and they are not difficult to develop or implement.
If a third violation occurs within one year of the second, then the city
may initiate an action to suspend, revoke, deny or not renew the
landlord's license. This can be avoided by the landlord if the landlord
initiates eviction cases against offending tenants or issues the
offending tenants notices to vacate. The director of inspections can
also discontinue a license revocation if he/she believes the landlord
has taken appropriate action.
Initiating a license revocation action is a fairly long administrative
process, with protections built in for the landlord (but unfortunately
not for innocent tenants who are also victims of the offending tenant).
First, the landlord may file an appeal to the Rental Dwelling License
Board of Appeals, paying a filing fee of $100.00. The board of appeals
is comprised of the following: seven members, three of whom are real
estate agents or brokers, residential rental property managers, or
residential rental property owners; two members who are tenants or
residential rental housing advocates; and two members who shall be
appointed from the general public.
The board of appeals must make specific findings and must issue them to
the City Council, who has final authority to revoke the license.
By the way, I just received information from the inspections office, and
out of the 16,000 rental dwellings currently licensed by the city, 8
licenses were revoked in the year 2000, and they expect to have the same
number this year. Those 8 revocations each year may include revocations
for lack of habitable conditions, in addition to those for "conduct on
premises."
Hope this was useful.
Gregory Luce
North Phillips
> As new investors rush in, the bottom-feeders
> are outbid and move on. Further, do not hold one person (property owner)
> responsible for the criminality or bad behavior of another person. " The vast
> middle level of rental property owners, those that live in a duplex or
> triplex or own 2-3-4 or more units, have historically served the
> neighborhoods', and their tenants', needs the best. By stigmatizing and
> confounding this type of small business activity, we end up pushing the
> property ownership into the hands of much larger and less personal hands, or
> into the hands of some less savory owners. We also end up pushing to many
> properties down and into the landfill!
--__--__--
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:45:10 EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Mpls] Riverview Supper Club and the Z&P Committee Meeting
With Mr. Hartwell's permission, I am posting his well spoken comments from
yesterday's Z&P Committee Meeting with regard to the Riverview Supper Club site.
Please note that besides running a business within close proximity of JADT's
proposal, Mr. Hartwell is also a resident of Minneapolis in Council Member
Goodman's ward:
I just returned from the Minneapolis Zoning and Planning Committee vote on the
JADT request to rezone the Riverview Supper Club site to allow residential
development. With the notable exception of Councilperson Jim Niland, what I
left with was an overwhelming feeling that the committee showed a remarkable
lack of courage in voting to approve the zoning change as did Councilperson
Biernat who spoke publicly supporting the zoning change.
The site is currently zoned for industrial use. The Park Board has demonstrated
and testified today that they wish the entire site were a park. Councilperson
Biernat claimed that the process had gone along too far and to not rezone the
property would be to deny property rights of the owners and those that wish to
redevelop it. Councilperson Ostrow and Campbell essentially echoed this view.
The truth is the JADT group acquired the option on the property knowing full
well what the existing zoning was. They hoped that they could get the zoning
changed but there was never any guarantee of that. They choose to invest hoping
they could get the zoning changed knowing that they had some risk that this
would not happen. To now say they have gone too far to turn them down is simply
nonsense.
What we saw was a lack of courage to stand up and say, “we will deny the
application to change the zoning, which is fully within our right, and hope that
those supporting the entire site to be a park will follow through on their
commitment to the park and find a way to make it happen”. Instead,
everyone except Councilperson Niland choose to show no courage and go along with
the proposal. (Councilperson Mead abstained as did Councilperson McDonald
after the other votes were counted)
It is a shame for us today and future generations. It is a stunning example of
why the voters choose to make changes in their city government. It is so
clearly a lack of vision and courage to do the right thing.
David Hartwell
Bellcomb Technologies
70 22nd Avenue North
Minneapolis, MN
612-521-2603
--__--__--
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:05:52 -0600
From: Michael Atherton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Mpls List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Mpls] housing demolition moratorium
Paul Zerby wrote:
> David's idea of a moratorium on housing demolition strikes me as a
> good idea and I'd be inclined to favor it. Are there any downsides
> to it that other list members think merit attention before adopting
> it?
A moratorium on demolition could delay needed affordable housing.
The best way to handle this would be within the existing permit
process. Require a review of any building over a given age and
require the notification and participation of neighbors before a
permit is issued.
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
--__--__--
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:20:30 -0600 (CST)
From: "Robert Schmid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Mpls] More Voodoo/Stadium economics Domes & Targets
Clark Griffith wrote;
> Congratulations, Robert, I didn't say raise taxes by .5%, I said .5% of
> taxes paid. So this is not .5% on top of an 8% tax rate, this is .5% of
> 100% of taxes collected. I mentioned a tax increase of .5% and not a
> tax rate increase of .5%. That was misleading. I am talking about a
> much smaller bite, and I'm talking about all taxes paid by all
> taxpayers, including corporations.
> Cheers, Clark Griffith, Seventh Ward
Clark Griffith wrote earlier;
>>Now who would really notice a
>>tax increase of .5%, that would be paid for by other people anyway, with
>>our progressive system?
Based on this I think my interpretation was valid. However, using
adjusted figures my tax dollars would still
Buy several tickets to twins games;
Buy 1 math book,
etc
and it's still a better investment.
Now as for public bonds and stadiums/arenas and such - from the Star
Tribune today;
"The city owes $80 million to arena bondholders, $67 million of which is
in general-obligation bonds backed by taxpayers. In a worst-case scenario,
the city could impose an additional levy on property owners to cover the
bonds."
We are already paying extra sales tax on the Target Center (last I
checked) and now there is a risk of my property taxes being raised to pay
for the thing.
THIS IS THE RESULT OF SHORT TERM THINKING. And once again we are going to
pay for it. I am NOT going to pay for yet ANOTHER stadium.
--__--__--
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:20:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Rich Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Voodoo/Stadium economics
To: Issues Minneapolis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Clark, I am sympathetic to the needs of baseball, but
unalterably opposed to direct tax fund subsidy of
either the team or a stadium.
So let's say you get you 0.5%. Whats to keep the
Guthrie from duplicating your performance? And then
every other group from the League of Women's Voters to
the Boy Scouts and the city itself stating that they
could make our city better with just a little money.
And each of them would probably be right. And
individually we could afford it. But as an aggregate
we absolutely cannot, and I haven't even gotten to the
arguments about the proper role of government.
I may end up watching Legion Ball and lying to myself
that any outdoor baseball is better than domeball to
cover my pain. But I'll be able to afford it, and
have some rationale left to fend off the megalomaniacs
trying to make my life better.
Rich Chandler - Ward 9
--- "Clark C. Griffith"
Congratulations, Robert, I didn't say raise taxes by
.5%, I said .5% of taxes paid. So this is not .5% on
top of an 8% tax rate, this is .5% of 100% of taxes
collected. I mentioned a tax increase of .5% and not a
tax rate increase of .5%. That was misleading. I am
talking about a much smaller bite, and I'm talking
about all taxes paid by all taxpayers, including
corporations.
Cheers, Clark Griffith, Seventh Ward
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
--__--__--
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:34:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Harstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Mpls] housing demolition moratorium
To: Betts Zerby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Councilmember Zerby:
A moratorium on housing demolition is overbroad.
Instead we need better regs which set clear standards
for when structures should be demolished. I know its
a lot more complicated, but that is reality.
As I said in my post the other day, houses have life
cycles, just like cars or any other product. If there
was a car shortage would it be wise to put a
moratorium on taking cars off the road? Of course
not. At some point every car become dangerous to the
drivers of that car and to other drivers on the road.
The same can be said for housing: when houses become
delapidated beyond repair they become a hazard to
occupants and to neighborhoods, especially
neighborhoods like mine (Whittier/Phillips).
Councilman, I would encourage you to drive by 2100 4th
avenue south, by the Electric Fetus. The house is a
fire hazard, it doesn't have several exterior doors,
has broken windows, etc. SAFE officers tell me the
inside is like a war zone.
Between 1/1/2001 and 9/30/2001 there were 58 police
calls to the house. Yes, 58-including calls for drug
trafficing, domestic abuse, etc. The house is
dangerous to the occupants, is an incredible drain on
police resources, is impeding redeveloping of the 4th
and Franklin area, and severely taxes people who live
near it. There is a woman who lives next door who I
understand is traumatized by the house and its
occupants. Before a moratorium is put in place, think
about living next to this building-24/7.
Dave Harstad
Whittier
--- Betts Zerby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David's idea of a moratorium on housing demolition
> strikes me as a
> good idea and I'd be inclined to favor it. Are
> there any downsides
> to it that other list members think merit attention
> before adopting
> it?
> Paul Zerby
>
> =====
> Elizabeth J. Zerby
> Minneapolis MN
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
> http://personals.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic
> Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
--__--__--
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:46:22 -0600
To: "List Manager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Eva Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Mpls] City Pages election package
>List members...and lawsuits?...in the news:
>http://www.citypages.com/databank/22/1093/article9941.asp
>From the article:
Citing unidentified sources, Strand--who backed Cherryhomes's Green
Party-endorsed opponent Natalie Johnson Lee--claimed that F. Clayton Tyler,
Cherryhomes's husband, was both part owner of a downtown sauna and attorney
for the notorious Evans Brothers prostitution ring.
========================
EY: I asked some of the Johnson Lee supporters at the RT victory party
about these stories. The supporters insisted that Tyler's ownership of
this sauna was a matter of public record. It would be easy enough for a
reporter to dig up the public records to settle this one way or another.
David Strand did quickly retract this statement -- and appologised several
times on the list. I know from being active in campaigns -- that word of
mouth rumors are a big part of campaigning.
This raises a question for me though -- how much responsibility do list
members have with fact checking? Is there going to be a suit against List
member, David Strand -- or is this just intimidation tactics from
Cherryhomes trying to shut down criticism.
The article continues:
In an e-mail the next day, Cherryhomes tersely denounced Strand's post as
"a bold-faced lie."
======================================
EY: Yup, that was the email Linda Higgins forwarded to the list.
The article continues:
Tyler, meanwhile, called Strand and demanded an immediate retraction and
apology. "I am truly sorry for sharing misinformation and furthering
hearsay," Strand posted to the newsgroup, blaming his misstep on "bad
rumors being bandied about in this part of ward 5." That satisfied neither
Cherryhomes nor Tyler, who responded, "We don't consider [Strand's] reply
to be either a retraction or an apology." Whereupon Strand returned to his
keyboard and offered his "utmost apologies" three more times.
===================================================
EY: I was confused by that email -- whether Cherryhomes or Tyler wrote it
was unclear. I thought it rather wierd that the City of Minneapolis email
was used for this also.
The article continues:
Under normal circumstances, such abject groveling might have spelled the
end of the matter. But Cherryhomes subsequently found herself on the
receiving end of one of the election's most shocking upsets: a defeat, by a
mere 72 votes, at the hands of Johnson Lee.
In a brief e-mail in response to questions posed for this story,
Cherryhomes wrote: "I believe the rumors could have had an effect on the
election. I would prefer that you speak with my husband about potential
legal action."
Says Tyler: "I'm currently talking with an attorney and will probably be
instituting a suit in connection with this. It's one thing to go after
somebody on their record, on what they've done and what they've said. It's
another to willingly disseminate lies. I'm not gonna take that lightly." He
adds that he has also asked city election officials to look into possible
voting irregularities in his wife's ward.
====================================================
EY: The question is whether Strand knew these were lies when he sent the
email to the list. Strand did immediately appologise -- and appoligize and
appologize.
Louis King posted a while back that "fear rules" in the 5th ward.
Certainly Cherryhomes and Tyler were using pretty heavy handed fear
inducing tactics to get Strand to retract his statements -- which he did.
This whole thing reminds me of the way Bush dealt with the GWBush.com
parody site -- he tried to shut the site down -- and in the process managed
to give the site all sorts of publicity -- for many months, the GWBush.com
site got more web hits than the official George W Bush site.
Eva
Eva Young
Central
--__--__--
Message: 12
From: "Amanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [Mpls] housing demolition moratorium
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:05:22 -0600
It seems there are ways to deal with all the problems you name other
than demolishing the house. If it is unsafe, it can be vacated for
safety reasons, and fixed up.
The moratorium on demolition seems a good idea to me as well. As I
understand the city's current policy, a house is torn down if it costs
more to repair it than demolish it. However, it costs much more to
build a whole new house.
The housing crisis is complicated, and needs a thoughtful response. I
am heartened to see a new council-person taking a thoughtful approach
to this issue, and asking questions.
Amanda
Cedar-Riverside
Ward 2
--__--__--
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:40:48 -0600
From: "Dean Zimmermann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor
I think a moratorium on non emergency demolitions has merit. When I moved
onto the 2400 block of 17th Ave, in Phillips, there were three 1800's
vintage duplexes across the alley. We bought the rattiest one and rehabbed
it. Is it a palace? No. But it does provide affordable housing for two
families. The other two were allowed to deteriorate and were torn down. A
moratorium will at least give us some time to get things sorted out.
Exceptions can be made of course. Old housing is affordable because it is
already paid for. It is a rare building that could not be fixed up cheaper
than putting up something new.
When buildings come down, they should be made available to scavengers
first--let us get everything useful out before the wrecking ball arrives.
There is a market for used building materials.
An aspect of affordable housing that is not being talked about is energy
efficiency. Green buildings cost less to operate. At the Green Institute
we have what we call the "1-10-100 formula". Simply put this formula says
that for every $1.00 that you put into constructing a building you will,
over the life of that building, spend $10.00 on utilities and maintenance
AND if it a commercial building, you will spend $100.00 over the life of the
building on your staff(on salaries, health care, etc.) This formula tells us
that if you can slightly increase the cost of the initial construction of
the building in order to cut your energy savings in half, you will save big
time. So if you can change the formula to $1.25-$7.50-$100.00 you have huge
savings over the long run. For this to have any practical application, we
need to work with the lending industry in order to restructure mortgages in
reflect this savings. It is in a way like TIF, in that it uses future
savings to finance up front costs.
Also, buy greening the building you can make a building more pleasant and
healthy in order to cut down on absenteeism and health costs, the savings
are huge.
Dean Zimmermann
Commissioner, Mpls Park & Rec Board
City Council Member, elect Ward 6
612-722-8768
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] Housing Crisis & A Challenge for the New Council & Mayor
Most of us are well aware that a major contributor to the affordable housing
crisis is the "demolition quest" the city has been on for almost a decade.
Clearly, the most affordable housing is the housing that we already have. A
lot
of funny math and "functional silo" behavior on the part of city departments
and
agencies has contributed to the problem. MCDA and Inspections both are
guilty
of excessive demolition of properties that could have otherwise become
affordable units for folks, whether homeowners, condo-owners, or renters;
everyone who would live in the city has suffered. Our landfills have
suffered,
the timber we use is not old enough to vote (thus poor quality with
heartwood
and sapwood everywhere), and increasingly we turn to plastic (petroleum
based)
for new construction, which has a pretty short shelf life. Clearly other
agendas contributed to the demolition quest. In some cases, I believe
otherwise
salvageable houses were demolished simply because that was easier for the
staff
person involved (as opposed to cost effectiveness or social agendas). In
some
cases, staff have stated that they believe new construction is the only way
suburban buyers can be drawn into the city (even if it's true, why is that
desirable?).
In light of this history, I challenge the new council (re-elected and newly
elected) as well as mayor-elect Rybak to call for an immediate city-wide
moratorium on non-emergency demolition of housing until recycling policy
options
can be reviewed. A moratorium on demolition would make a strong statement
about
how serious the new council is about the affordable housing problems.
I have actually already spoken with a number of council members regarding
this
issue, and it was well received.
So folks, how about it?
David Piehl
Central/8th Ward
______________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message is private and confidential
information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and
work
product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution
or
copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message
in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies
of
the message. Thank you.
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
--__--__--
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:51:10 -0600
From: List Manager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Mpls] List conduct and lawsuits
Eva writes:
=20
> This raises a question for me though -- how much responsibility do list
> members have with fact checking? Is there going to be a suit against Lis=
t
> member, David Strand -- or is this just intimidation tactics from
> Cherryhomes trying to shut down criticism.
I will speak carefully based, as they say, on advice from counsel.
However, it is my personal, non-legal opinion that the list has substantial
legal protections thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. List rules
do police decorum, but I cannot, will not, and legally should not evaluate
the truth or lack thereof of messages you post as list manager. This list i=
s
not moderated - I do not pre-screen posts. You put it out there, you're
responsible for it.
I cannot evaluate the level of protection individuals have - attorneys, fee=
l
free to comment - but I think you all have less than E-Democracy does.
In general - morally, if not legally, and NOT as an official list ruling - =
I
think it's bad business to spread unsubstantiated gossip, even if you hear
it from multiple sources, ESPECIALLY when it involves serious and possibly
criminal conflict-of-interest charges. I don't think list members have to
live in fear of being sued, but I do think there are good reasons not to
increase your risk.
In other words, don't throw out wild and wacky stuff, and please, don=B9t
float malicious gossip if you have no basis in fact. That=B9s just good
behavior, ethically AND legally.
David Brauer
Kingfield - Ward 10
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--__--__--
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:40:07 -0600
From: Jay Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Betts Zerby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mpls] housing demolition moratorium
I will bet that someone living next to a house that has been boarded for 20
months, has addicts breaking into it to shoot up, which has become the Hyatt
Regency for rats and cockroaches, whose yard looks like the Amazon, and for
which there are no tangible prospects for a rehabber to come in and fix the
building, will find a downside to the idea of the city government putting a
moratorium on demolition, especially since the city will probably spend years
studying the matter before it is ready, if ever, to get in there and fix the
house. And all the time the house is deteriorating more and more, and
becoming less and less salvageable, and more and more of a danger to the
neighbors.
Jay Clark
Cooper
Betts Zerby wrote:
> David's idea of a moratorium on housing demolition strikes me as a
> good idea and I'd be inclined to favor it. Are there any downsides
> to it that other list members think merit attention before adopting
> it?
> Paul Zerby
>
> =====
> Elizabeth J. Zerby
> Minneapolis MN
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
> http://personals.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
--__--__--
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 11:56:53 -0600
From: "Citizens for a Loring Park Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] Cutbacks to City Attorney Budget-Action Needed!!
Loring Park is part of an Initiative called Central Cities Neighborhood
Partnership which operates a Restorative Justice Program. Our focus is to
reduce livability crimes in and around the downtown neighborhoods, as well
as to hold accountable to the community those who break the law, ensuring
consequences for actions, while looking at ways with the Offender to prevent
the action to occur again.
We are distressed by the proposed City Budget. Please read the following
news alert and call your Councilmember, new Councilmembers and new elected
leadership. This is THE topic which is coming up over and over again on
this Issues List....Let's get some action and accountability from our
elected leadership. If they say "prosecution of livability crimes is a
priority"...then there needs to be the resources to get it done or we keep
seeing the same revolving door over and over and over and no reduction of
livability crimes which plague our inner city neighborhoods.
Please help!! Thanks. Jana L. Metge/Citizens for a Loring Park Community
Action Alert--Cutbacks to City Attorney's 2002 budget
In the Mayor's proposed 2002 budget, the City Attorney's Office (CAO) has
been directed to cut $200,000 from the approximately $4 milllion allocated
to the Criminal Division in 2001. This, coupled with a likely decrease in
federal funding, will greatly limit the CAO's ability to aggressively
prosecute misdemeanor crimes in Minneapolis. The following obstacles to
prosecution of livability crimes were laid out by the CAO in their
Priorities document found on the City's website
(www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/citywork/Priorities_2002/index.html):
--Overwhelming caseload: "in 2000, 52,429 cases were handled by 33.5 FTE
positions, an average of 1565 cases per position. This is in sharp contrast
to the American Bar Association (and State) standard for public defenders of
400 misdemeanor cases per attorney per year." The only recent addition to
Criminal Division staff were made possible by federal funding, not increased
city funding.
--Unstable long-term funding: At the present the CAO's Criminal Division
budget relies heavily on funding from federal law enforcement block grants.
According to the CAO "Federal funds...are not a reliable long-term source of
funding...Without an alternative funding source, the City would not have
adequuate prosecution resources to continue its aggressive prosecution of
livability crimes." The federal grant is also tied to part I violent crime
rates, which are typically felony charges prosecuted by the County Attorney,
not the Minneapolis CAO. While Part I offenses have dropped, Part II
livability crimes have continued unabated.
--Inadequate information systems: "Because of the Criminal Division's
inadequate information system, a comprehensive evaluation in so possible"
with regards to case management. This means that the CAO cannot evaluate
its progress on case processing time and is not able to coordinate its
information systems with other criminal justice system partnersh, i.e.
Katie's Law on tracking sex offenders statewide.
ACTION STEPS;
A. Phone Calls and Letters - Phone calls and letters to the Mayor and
city council members are urgently needed by November 21 voicing neighborhood
concerns about cutbacks to the CAO's budget.
Please urge city leaders to restore full funding to the CAO's budget and
locate resources for its information systems because:
--Misdemeanor level crimes continue to erode neighborhood livability.
--The effective prosecution of livability crimes should be a core city
service and needs stable, ongoing funding support from the city, it is the
city's responsibility to ensure that laws are enforced and that offenders
are held accountable.
--The CAO is already understaffed, budget cutbacks will only further limit
their ability to effectively prosecute their caseload.
--This budget cut will negatively impact the CAO's ability to work with
community-based programs and could eliminate both the support staff for
neighborhood restorative justice programs and the CAO's Community Mediator,
who works with victims of crimes.
B. Public testimony
After the Mayor's full budget is made public on Thursday, November 8 at 1:00
p.m., there will be public hearings on the various department's allocations.
Please attend the public hearing on the City's budget on December 10 at 5:00
p.m. in Room 132 at City Hall and urge the City Council members who will be
reviewing the budget's provisions to restore full funding for the City
Attorney's budget.
Please let us know about any responses you get from City Leaders on this
issue.
Prepared by: Central Cities Neighborhood Partnership/Restorative Justice
Program. Contact: Mike Rollin at 612-871-8100.
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
End of Mpls Digest
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
